Train Operating Companies v Trade Unions dispute - ongoing discussion

[whole diary]

[JayMac]

The RMT^▸ (National Union of Rail, Maritime & Transport Workers)'s response:

16 February 2017
RMT Press Office:

RMT General Secretary Mick Cash said:

“This referendum was entirely a matter for ASLEF^» (Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen - about) and their Southern members. RMT has remained focused on the industrial and public campaign to protect the safety of the travelling public and to put access and safe operations before profits.

RMT will now look to take that campaign into its next phase working with our sister rail unions, the wider trade union movement and the passengers who use the railway.

RMT repeats the call to Southern to give the guarantee of a second, safety critical member of staff on their trains and to sit down with the unions in new talks around the issue of safe train dispatch.”

Ends.

Entirely a matter for ASLEF??? Mick Cash really is taking the piss and quite obviously gloating with this statement. Just last week he was accusing ASLEF of a 'shocking betrayal' after the union top brass had hammered out a deal with GTR Southern.

A week is a long time in politics. Seems the same is true in union relationships.

[TaplowGreen]

Very interesting metric ... if 30 people who voted "reject" had voted "accept", it would have gone the other way ... and over 300 who were eligible to vote didn't.  At least the option that garnered the most individual votes won the day, and that gives the people that said "no" the say-so on where this goes now, even through their leaders that to implement it don't agree ... rather smacks of Brexit.   Could have been worse - could have been like the USA presidential election where the winner was the person who came second in the number of individual votes.

Except the US election  (unlike trade union ballots) is decided by an electoral college system, not individual votes, so that's not really comparing apples with apples.

[grahame]

Except the US election  (unlike trade union ballots) is decided by an electoral college system, not individual votes, so that's not really comparing apples with apples.

Oh for sure - I'm saying that the British system of apples seems far better to me than the American system of oranges.   Of course, in the USA it's the system they've grown up with an love, and I'm are that if Hilary Clinton had gained more electoral college delegates, but fewer individual votes, than Donald Trump he would have been the first to graciously accept defeat.

[TonyK]

Correct BNM - I meant to limit my verdict to ASLEF^» (Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen - about), but am watching Match of the Day, and got distracted. I would be astonished if ASLEF's members vote against it in a majority when it is put to the ballot.

Mind you, I've been astonished before. Good goal by Anthony Martial.

Boy, is my face red!

[ChrisB]

New laws affecting ballots for industrial action come in today.

50% of those able to vote need to vote & where critical services involved, at least a 40% vote in favour required of those able to vote. I think that's right....

[Tim]

New laws affecting ballots for industrial action come in today.

50% of those able to vote need to vote & where critical services involved, at least a 40% vote in favour required of those able to vote. I think that's right....

I tend to agree on that.  The threshold needs to be possible to achieve but not easy to achieve. 

[trainbuff]

Devils Advocate.

Interesting about ballot laws. Will Parliament also decide to do the same for elections? I am sure less than 40% of those eligible to vote actually voted for this current Government

[ChrisB]

As long as you do as many countries, and make voting compulsory, then you might crack it

[trainbuff]

Works for me Chris B. The vote was hard fought for and to not vote is a waste of this effort. Besides if I vote then I can justly complain. Because I have taken part in the process at  ;)least

[ChrisB]

yep, totally agree!

[stuving]

Devils Advocate.

Interesting about ballot laws. Will Parliament also decide to do the same for elections? I am sure less than 40% of those eligible to vote actually voted for this current Government

An election is A vs B, rather than A vs do nothing or status quo. Leaving the outgoing bunch in power is not a good idea in general (lots of examples why around the world). Of course referendums (e.g. on constitution changes) have often been given such a threshold, with better justification...

[stuving]

If at first ... another agreement has been reached between Aslef and GTR. According to Aslef's statement:

GTR and ASLEF^» (Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen - about) reach new agreement to settle dispute
15 March 2017

Govia Thameslink Railway, parent company of Southern Railway, and ASLEF, the train drivers’ union, today announced they have agreed new terms to settle their dispute. The agreement will now be put to ASLEF members at Southern Rail in a referendum, with a recommendation from the union’s executive committee to accept. Subject to securing the support of ASLEF members, the dispute between the union and Southern will be over.

Mick Whelan, general secretary of ASLEF, said: ‘ASLEF members now have the opportunity to decide on the new terms of the agreed resolution with GTR Southern. This agreement has the full support of the negotiating team, and the executive committee, and offers solutions to our concerns, as well as restoring the confidence of all parties, and the travelling public.’

Andy Bindon, human resources director of GTR, said: ‘We’ve had constructive talks with ASLEF, and we’re pleased we’ve been able to secure a recommended deal, subject to approval from its members, to end their dispute. It’s been an extraordinarily difficult period for passengers, staff and the regional economy and we are glad we’ve found a way to move forward together. We look forward to restoring good industrial relations with ASLEF.’

The result of the referendum will be announced on Monday 3 April. Until then, ASLEF and GTR intend to make no further statements.

[stuving]

Southern are showing a news item with identical wording to Aslef's, ending with:
"The result of the referendum will be announced on Monday 3 April. Until then, ASLEF^» (Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen - about) and GTR intend to make no further statements."

And the BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page)'s news item says they have heard no details of this agreement. For the Aslef leadership, another agreement voted down would be highly embarrassing, and they would certainly prefer for its terms to be kept secret for now. I guess GTR will see no point in releasing details either, since it would been seen by drivers as pretty aggressive and in the lead up to the vote GTR want to be mates with their drivers.

[stuving]

The BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page) have now got their hands on a copy of the new agreement (apparently by taking a picture from far away and blowing it up!). They say the improved cameras are now to come in a year sooner, and on-board staff will get safety (PTS^▸ (Personal Track Safety)) training.

They show the (fuzzy) text listing the reasons to operate with no second person (OBS) - here's how it compares to v1.1 (new text in italics):

This agreement does not apply to circumstances where the OBS's turn is on the "no cover" list (i.e. not covered on the daily or weekly alteration sheet). Before applying any of the following the reasons below, the Resource Manager/OBS Coordinator must try to provide a replacement OBS for the service, or part of the service, where reasonably practicable. ensure that all other options for OBS provision have been fully exhausted.

The following are circumstances when Control may require the service to run without OBS:

a) OBS absent/ late on duty, or unauthorised absence, at the start of or during the duty, and where there is no alternative cover available to run this service.
b) Late notice OBS sickness / absence / emergency leave and where there is no alternative cover available to run this service.
c) OBS delayed whilst ‘passing’ to work.
d) OBS displaced by late running or service disruption.
Should c) or d) occur, arrangements must be made to restore OBS presence as soon as is reasonably possible.
e) OBS unable to continue duty having commenced booked diagram (for example through sickness or assault having to leave the service to assist wirth a customer service issue / incident / emergency).
f) Driver or OBS error.
(e.g. If the OBS is left behind by driver and/or OBS error, or OBS misreading roster/diagram)
g) OBS has to leave the service, to cope with a passenger incident or civil emergency.
h) Should coverage of duties be impacted as a consequence of widespread or sudden high intensity sickness, the parties commit to working together to deliver the best possible service arrangements for the benefit of passengers.

That's roughly eight reasons cut down to five (not relettered in the above).

[ChrisB]

What's the meaning of 'passing' in c) above?